Welcome to the Lounge

honey the codewitch wrote:

I think it's inconsistent, and I think the array specifier should have been declared with the type since it's essentially a type modifier like * and &

int *pa, a;

template<class T, size_t N>
using Array = T[N];

template<class T>
using Ptr = T*;

Array<int, 10> test_array;

Ptr<int> test_pointer;

Stuart Dootson wrote:

One thing it's not is inconsistent - the pointer modifier belongs with the variable, not the type.

Quote:

Does it bother anyone else that you declare a pointer like:

char* sz; // pointer type, pointer declared *with* type

char *sz;

char* szA, szB, szC;   // Not what you intended, and even if you did intend that
                       // the **reader** isn't sure you intended to do that!

char *szD, *szE, *szF; // Anyone reading this knows exactly what was intended.

void (*fptr) (void);     // See?  The "*" 'binds' to the variable, not the type.

Quote:

I suppose then that I do not like that type modifiers are not declared with the type.

short int si1;     // Compiles
int short si2;     // Compiles
short int *psi3;   // Compiles
*short int psi4;   // Error, won't compile.

const char *varname[100];

int (*getFunc())(int, int) { … }

harold aptroot wrote:

but worse that people feel this kind of Stockholm Syndrome towards a type syntax that just doesn't make sense

char *sz, sz2[], sz3[1024];

static const char sz4, *sz5, const *sz6;